Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 11:59, Glendon M. Gross wrote:
> It's almost as though the RIAA would become like a "Department of Art" 
> or "Department of Copyright Enforcement."  I find it strange that there 
> is not more resistance to their point of view in the courts, but I 
> suspect that except for the EFF very few people are actively 
> representing the opposing view.

Maybe the best thing to do is accept the RIAA's status as
a quasi-governmental agency.  There are any number of laws
regulating the conduct of such agencies, and the Courts
seem quite willing to apply them strictly.  Wouldn't it be
fun if the RIAA's meetings were covered by sunshine laws?

> The RIAA often seems to win these kinds 
> of cases by "default."   Content creators may need some kind of 
> representation in government but it should be an impartial 
> representation, not a partisan representation.  Ultimately I don't think 
> the RIAA helps artists as much as they do mechanical reproducers of 
> music [and copyright owners] who often don't compensate the artist at all.

Actually, the RIAA doesn't represent artists at all.  (You're
thinking ASCAP or BMI)  The RIAA represents *publishers*, and
on several occasions has represented them *against* artists.
The RIAA, for instance, was behind the notorious "work for
hire" law.

-- 
| The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
| Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+